Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baboon43

To remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 12:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.''

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.''

Cause of concern
''{Add summary here, provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.}''

User:Baboon43 has consistently displayed long-term uncivil behavior with other editors. While he has made numerous helpful and positive contributions to Wikipedia, he has also edit warred just to make a point, even after receiving a "final warning" for edit warring.

Past infractions - multiple accounts, edit warring
Baboon43 was blocked for the first time for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts in March 2012. Then in April that same year, Baboon43 reported two other editors at the noticeboard; it boomeranged back onto him and HE was blocked, along with one of the editors he reported. Finally, Baboon43 attempted to once again report another user on the 3RR noticeboard here this March (just three months ago) which resulted in another boomerang with a final warning for Baboon43 and the others involved.

Prejudice/bigoted remarks
Back in February, Baboon43 opposed inclusion of Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding as a source in Wahhabi movement because a Saudi prince donated to it. According to Baboon43, the prince is a wahhabi merely because, as it appears, he's Saudi. When I expressed my shock at such comments, Baboon43 accused me of being either a Wahhabi or misinformed.

Recently, Baboon43 attempted to claim Wahhabism (a Saudi Arabian movement) and Deobandism (an Indian movement) are one and the same, using the actual expression "they are guilty by association." Baboon43 has expressed many times his belief that all Wahhabi people are inherently violent, which in and of itself is a generalization. Now he's saying that these two movements are one and the same based on guilt by association, so he's basically implicating the millions of followers of not one but two religious movements with violence.

Aggressive/rude edit summaries
When I edited an article to better reflect what was in the given source back in January, Baboon43 reacted by reverting my edit without explanation and against the source and accusing me of hounding him. When I explained to him on his talk page that such language is unacceptable as is edit warring against what's available in the given source, he erased my comment saying "take your own advice." It's his right to erase what he wants on his talk page but the comment shows that Baboon43 was absolutely unwilling to work things out.

Uncivil tone when discussing editing disputes
Starting again in January, Baboon43 attempted to use what we later realized was a Wikipedia fork to prove a point (which was ultimately found to be contrary to the actual reliable sources). That's alright, but in the course of discussion his responses began including battle ground-type remarks such as "your whole argument has been debunked...regardless of what you think" and accusing me of belonging to some relgious reform movement in India because I disagreed with him that the movement (Deobandi) are all "wahhabis" as he describes them.

Seeming to try and provoke others
Most recently, Baboon43 appears to be trying to provoke me into some sort of a flame war on Talk:Barelvi. After making some edits, explaining my rationale preemptively and requesting community feedback, he expressed a difference of opinion in a polite manner; I was delighted, actually. As the discussion progressed, Baboon43 made the aforementioned bigoted comment regarding two religious movements and I expressed my confusion; aside from being a bad thing to say, he didn't seem to be making any suggestions about editing the article and I reminded him that talk pages aren't for chatting. With no escalation, he attacked me personally, accusing me of false rambling and POV pushing without stating why. This upset me because he's harassed me and others like this before, so I told him point blank: if he doesn't either support his accusations or take them back, I would go to ANI. His reaction was to simply accuse me of POV pushing again without proof and that I should "halt the ignorance." I then surmised that a user banned with sockpuppetry who was close with Baboon43 but is now topic banned from commenting on the article's talk space may have asked him to "monitor" my edits; paranoid, but I believe the admin and other users involved can testify that my paranoia is at least partially justified. Baboon43 then accused me of spreading misinformation in a seemingly pointless comment as it didn't relate to article content, at which point I very directly asked him for diffs to prove my misinformation and POV pushing before we come to ANI. Once again, he just accused me of POV pushing without any actual evidence.

Upon bringing the issue to ANI, I was informed that I was at the wrong place; I didn't realize that RFCs could be for users as well as articles, so on the recommendation of multiple editors I have now brought the issue here.

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.


 * Guidelines:
 * WP:GOODFAITH
 * WP:POINTy
 * WP:TALKNO


 * Policies:
 * WP:BATTLEGROUND
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:EDITWAR
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:NOTFORUM

Desired outcome
''This summary of the dispute is written by the users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. Other users may present their views of the dispute in the other sections below.''

The goal of all this is that Baboon43:


 * Considers how others will react to his comments in edit summaries and on talk pages before posting them (think about others).
 * Responds to feedback regarding his comments and conduct, and be willing to empathize with how others might feel about his remarks.
 * Understands that if there is content in an article with which he disagrees, discussing matters on the relevant talk page and building community consensus will help him to achieve his goals far more than edit warring will.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Attempts by User:Wifione

 * 23:12, 17 July 2012

Attempts by User:MezzoMezzo

 * 08:20, 10 February 2013
 * 05:14, 19 February 2013
 * 23:45, 4 March 2013

Attempts by User:FutureTrillionaire

 * 17:08, 25 March 2013

Attempts by User:Darkness Shines

 * 16:17, 27 March 2013
 * 16:28, 27 March 2013

Attempts by User:GorgeCustersSabre

 * 04:20, 10 June 2013
 * 04:55, 10 June 2013

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.


 * MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.


 * Fai zan  08:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 12:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Questions to certifiers
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.''

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response
''{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}''

Response to concerns
{Add summary here.}

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.



Users endorsing this response
 RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.



Questions to named user
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.''

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Additional views
''This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.''

Outside view by User:Forward Unto Dawn
''{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}''

I'm not involved with this dispute, but I was invited to share the experience I had with this user a year ago here. According to my user contributions, following a discussion on the Syrian civil war talk page, I was personally attacked by this user on my talk page. After cautioning the user and giving the user a chance to revert the edit, he deleted my warning and I removed his edit from my talk page. That was the end of my experience with this user.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  10:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- Forward   Unto   Dawn  10:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  Fai  zan  10:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) smileguy91talk 22:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

View by involved User:Lukeno94
I don't think I've interacted too often with Baboon43, but obviously I've interacted very frequently with MezzoMezzo, so I consider myself involved. My initial impressions of Baboon43 were pretty positive; but after Msoamu was topic-banned, it seemed to me like Baboon43 has somewhat taken their place - editing tendentiously and firing lots of attacks against MezzoMezzo. Given the above, however, it looks like this is a much longer-term problem, and a much greater cause for concern. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 13:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Outside view by Dusti
I've been watching this RFC/U for awhile, and I'm extremely bothered by the fact that the user this is in relation to refuses to participate. This endorses the concerns that are being presented here. Wikipedia is nothing without editors who are willing to collaborate with each other in a civil manner. By trying to push a certain point of view, you're in essence attempting to own the article. This is inappropriate, and highly disrespectful. Making comments in regards to a person's race or religion in a disrespectful manner is also highly inappropriate. I feel that if User:Baboon43 refuses to give his side of the story, he might as well be endorsing all of the views above, as he's certainly not attempting to say they're not true. I believe it's time for this to be taken to AN/I for discussion of a community ban.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  D u s t i *poke* 21:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) smileguy91talk 01:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6)  Fai  zan  09:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) -- Forward  Unto   Dawn  09:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed solutions
''This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties. ''

Template 1
1) Intent to Propose a Community Ban


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template 2
2) Intent to Propose a Topic ban for an indefinite amount of time. Topic ban can be revisited at a later date as determined by consensus at AN/I


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template 3
3) Intent to Propose an Indefinite Block. Block can be discontinued after a successful appeal where the editor acknowledges the concerns of the community and understands editing habits are inappropriate and/or offensive.


 * Comment by parties:
 * I throw my full support behind this solution...as of now, at least (I can't rule out the possibility that someone will make a convincing argument for another solution). One major issue here has been the subject's refusal to even participate in this RFC/U. He has been informed of this discussion three times; once he said he doesn't care, once he said he doesn't have the time (though he has found the time to continue an edit war while this is going on) and the last time he simply blanked part of his talk page. Additionally, I'm concerned about a topic ban because this combative behavior doesn't seem restricted to certain topics; it follows this user no matter what sort of article he's editing. An indefinite ban which could be appealed by acknowledgement of the problem seems like the best way, as it would force the user for sure to finally admit that there is a problem and take positive steps toward improving interactions with other editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support The same strong support here... at least untill he acknowlegdes his inappropriate/offensive editing attitude. Edit-warning by the editor while an RFC/U is in progress provides oil to the fire. Agreed with Mezzo's concerns on a topic ban. His combative editng seems to be on a wide range of topics. He ought to participate in the discussion here, but he has found 1.) enough time for edit-warning. 2.)Enough care for an edit-war ..... Awful. Fai  zan  06:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If I should be sat in the above section, feel free to move me, but this is the one I support the most. I don't need to say anything new; my comments on the talk page and elsewhere in this RfC/U should be enough. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I have seldom felt so strongly about the consistent misbehavior of a fellow editor. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I wish something less drastic could be effective, but this user seems completely unwilling to discuss his behaviour or acknowledge any concerns regarding same. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Rather than put this on the talk page as I have before, I'll post a comment here. An RFC does not have the remit to impose community sanctions on another editor. Solutions can be proposed and the editor in question may accept or decline the proposals as they see fit. In the case of sanctions, these can be tabled and a proposal put together for placing on WP:AN. This proposed solution should be reworded as Intent of proposing an indefinite block of Baboon43 on the administrator noticeboards or something along those lines. This may seem a bit pedantic, but the closing admin will bring this up. Blackmane (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've amended it to reflect the fact that what we're discussing here, then, is merely the intent to propose sanctions in the near future, at which point they are not guaranteed to succeed or fail. Is this way more correct in terms of RFC/U functionality? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 19:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to write a draft proposal on the talk page. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary
This discussion continued at WP:AN, and was closed with the decision to indefinitely block Baboon43. As an uninvolved admin, I'm closing this discussion according to a request on my talk page. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia help templates